Skip to content
← Research library

Research source

The more part of mediaeval witchcraft, therefore, is not quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus

Date of account
Published 1894
Source
Cock Lane and Common-Sense
Reference
Cock Lane and Common-Sense · selected passage 24
Rights
public_domain
Language
English
Record updated
2026-08-24

View the original source ↗

Record summary

The more part of mediaeval witchcraft, therefore, is not quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus

Published source text

Read the available text below. Archive transcriptions may contain OCR errors; later context is labelled separately. A recorded claim is not a finding that it happened.

Source passage

Source text · mention only

The more part of mediaeval witchcraft, therefore, is not quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. The facts were facts: people really died or were sterile, flocks suffered, ships were wrecked, fields were ruined; the mistake lay in attributing these things to witchcraft. On the other hand, the facts of rappings, ghosts, clairvoyance, in spite of the universally consentient evidence, are very doubtful facts after all. Their existence has to be established before we look about for their cause. Now, of records about _these_ phenomena the Middle Ages produce but a very scanty supply. The miracles which were so common were seldom of this kind; they were imposing visions of devils, or of angels, or of saints; processions of happy or unhappy souls; views of heaven, hell, or purgatory. The reason is not far to seek: ecclesiastical chroniclers, like classical men of letters, recorded events which interested themselves; a wraith, or common ghost ('matter of daily experience,' says Lavaterus, and, later, contradicts himself), or knocking sprite, was beneath their notice. In mediaeval sermons we meet a few edifying wraiths and ghosts, returning in obedience to a compact made while in the body.

Historical context

Contextual commentary · mention only

This comes from historical psychical research. Methods, witness handling and standards of evidence differ from present-day research and should be assessed from the cited passage and edition.

Modern context

Contextual commentary · mention only

The passage can support a history of claims and recurring descriptions. It does not establish a paranormal mechanism, and competing psychological, social and physical explanations remain relevant.

Investigate related details with Anomaly Graph’s account-based search, or read how matching and provenance work.